Sandon

That's primarily why I wrote it. I wouldn't want any new collectors to think that the corroded and altered coins posted by the OP are mint errors.

Welcome to the NGC chat board. You should post questions of this sort on the "Newbie Coin Collecting Questions" forum, not the "Ask NGC/NCS" forum, as NGC does not offer free opinions on the identification, authenticity, or condition of coins. The coin appears to be a 1935-D Lincoln cent but as others have stated is so severely worn and damaged as to have no collector value.

The coin in my opinion would grade approximately MS 62 (lower end mint state) due to the heavy abrasions on Liberty's face. The 1884-CC is the most common Carson City Morgan dollar. Of the 1,136,000 originally struck, 962,638 (nearly 85%) remained unissued in the U.S. Treasury in 1964 and were sold by the General Services Administration in holders like yours in a series of sales between 1972 and 1980. Their price went up substantially during the pandemic, and they are in my opinion overpriced at current retail list prices of around $350 for one like yours. (I purchased a nicer one (MS 63-64) for $219 from a major auction house in 2019.)

I joined this chat board a little over a year ago and to my knowledge have never even met any of the other participants in person. I have, however, collected and studied U.S. coins for over 52 years, have read extensively in this area, have been a member of the A.N.A. for 42 years, and have learned from a number of experienced collectors and dealers at coin shows, A.N.A. conventions, and coin club meetings. I have found that most of the participants referred to by the OP as not knowing anything about coins are in fact knowledgeable. I have learned some things from some of them and, hopefully, some of them have learned something from me. None of us purports to know everything about coins, especially mint errors, or never to be mistaken. None of the coins posted by the OP, which are uncertified and claimed to be errors in his opinion alone, appears to me to exhibit a mint error either. In addition to expressing my own opinion, however, I will refer to the appropriate pages of error-ref.com regarding the types of errors that the OP professes the coins to be. 1. This coin exhibits the type of reddish-brown discoloration that is all too familiar to anyone who has gone through accumulations of circulated copper-nickel and copper-nickel clad coins. It appears to be corrosion resulting from exposure to the earth or other environmental factors. The OP describes the coin as having "[c]lad layer stressed partial missing obv rev [sic] Initial error NOT PMD (the corrosion you see is from being in circulation)". The OP doesn't point out what parts of the obverse and/or reverse he claims are missing the clad layer rather than just being corroded or how one can distinguish between the areas affected by the error and those impacted by subsequent corrosion. A search on error-ref.com using the words "missing clad layer" returned the following results: Search Results for “missing clad layer” (error-ref.com). The only example shown that bears any resemblance whatsoever to the posted circulated 1999-D Georgia quarter is an uncirculated 1999-P Georgia quarter described as "struck on a planchet that was missing part of clad layer on the obverse": Note how you can see the difference in thickness and distortion at the boundaries of the area missing the clad layer, especially where it intersects with the rim of the coin. The area missing the clad layer appears to be at a lower level than the area with the layer, as would be expected. Moreover, this type of error is described as "part of the obverse or reverse clad layer is missing from the planchet" and does not mention cases where portions of the clad layer has been missing from both sides of the coin. On the OP's coin some of the dark areas appear to be at a higher level than the lighter ones, indicating raised corrosion, not a missing clad layer. 2. This 1999-P Delaware quarter looks like it was spray painted, first with brown (primer?) and then with silver paint, some of which then rubbed off the highest points, but I'm speculating. Whatever happened to it, it doesn't look like anything that could have happened during the minting process. The OP describes it as "improperly annealed planchet (The molecules of copper effervesced and caused the clad layer to fail due to being exposed to oxygen/ circulated) Initial error NOT PMD." Error-ref.com identifies certain "copper-nickel and Cu-Ni clad coins struck on planchets with a layer of copper on the surface" as having been struck on improperly annealed planchets. Search Results for “improper annealing” (error-ref.com). However, none of the three nickels shown as examples of this phenomenon bears any resemblance to the OP's quarter. 3. The uniformly grainy surfaces and weak details of this 2000-P Maryland quarter suggest to me that the coin was etched by acid. The OP contends that it is "obvious" that the coin was struck through grease. However, the coin doesn't resemble any of the photos or descriptions on error-ref.com of coins struck through "grease' or other compacted die fill material. Search Results for “struck through grease” (error-ref.com). These coins generally exhibit weak or missing details in the areas affected by the grease, not grainy surfaces. If the OP is so sure that he is correct and that all of us are wrong, I suggest that he submit these coins to a reputable grading service for error attribution or at least obtain written opinions about them from a recognized expert on mint errors His unsupported contentions as to these coins and the competence of the participants on this forum have proven nothing.

This is the crux of the issue and why it is, in my opinion, correct for others who have responded to this topic to refer to the holders containing these coins as nothing more than a marketing gimmick. Many of us who post on these forums can rightfully be referred to as numismatists--those who study as well as collect coins and other things made for use as money. In this case grading services have placed the words "Emergency Issue" and identified certain coins as having been made at a specific mint on the little paper tag or label inserted into the holder not based on a mint mark or any other distinguishing characteristic of the coins themselves but purportedly on markings on the container in which the mint shipped the coins, which no one can subsequently verify. Anyone who pays a premium for coins in these holders is paying it for what is printed on that little paper tag, not for the coin itself, which if removed from the holder would simply be a common 2020 bullion issue ASE with a mintage of over thirty million. There is nothing to learn or to study or to list in the "Redbook". This is not numismatics. You are welcome to collect what you wish, including grading service holders because of their labels rather than the coins they contain. The grading services and those who submit and market these items thank you for your money.

Duplicate post.

Q1: ANACS in its "small white holder" days used to give a "net grade" based upon its graders' perception of the severity of a "details" graded coin's impairment. (The details grade, such as "VF details". would usually be stated.) It is really up to the individual collector to decide what such a coin is worth based upon the individual's own judgment and taste. Q2: I would want to see the coin or at least good photos of it to judge the severity and level of distraction presented by the "graffiti", which usually means letters, numbers or doodles lightly scratched into the coin's surface. Q3: No comment. There doesn't seem to be a question, anyway.

Have you checked the coin on NGC Certificate Verification? Click NGC Cert Lookup | Verify NGC Certification | NGC (ngccoin.com) or look at the menu on the "Resources" tab at the top right of the NGC home page. This will verify that the coin's serial number and grade have been awarded to a coin of the same denomination, date, and mint and, if the coin has been certified since approximately 2008, will include photographs of both sides of the holder, including the encapsulated coin. There have been instances of counterfeit or overgraded coins placed in fake NGC holders with matching serial numbers and grades, but these would be unlikely to match the photos exactly.

Welcome to the NGC chat board. Although U.S. silver dollars issued from 1840 to 1935, including the Seated, Morgan and Peace dollar series, have a statutorily prescribed weight (when uncirculated) of 26.73 grams with a tolerance of 0.097 gram plus or minus, NGC has not, to my knowledge, specified an exact or even an approximate weight for its holders of any era from its inception in 1987 until now. Even individual holders from the same lot likely vary in weight depending on many factors arising during their manufacture and sealing. You could post this question on the "Ask NGC/NCS" forum to see if NGC has another answer, but I highly doubt it. If I may ask, why do you want to know what the coin and holder should weigh together?

The three cent nickel series boasts three proof only dates, the 1877, 1878, and 1886. They have limited mintages that would be considered extremely low today but are readily available in grades as high as PF 66 for prices that would seem to be incredibly low in comparison to coins with similar populations in more popularly collected series or to proof only dates in such series, most notably the 1895 Morgan dollar. Let's take a look at each of these issues, beginning with the 1877. The 1877 is considered to be the key date to the series with a reported distribution of 900 pieces per the 2023 "Redbook". (Some earlier dates have lower reported proof distributions but are also represented by surviving examples of considerably larger circulation quality mintages.) It is possible that more 1877s were minted and either sold or subsequently released into circulation. The NGC Coin Explorer notes that the mint did not begin recording records of the sale of minor coin proofs sets until 1878. 1877 3CN PF | Coin Explorer | NGC (ngccoin.com). (The 2023 "Redbook" shows a similar mintage of 900 for the key, also proof only 1877 Shield nickel but "1,250-1,500" for the remaining proof minor coin issue of that year, the Indian cent.) Although grading service population data is inflated by resubmissions of the same pieces to the same or other services, it is the best information available to obtain some idea as to how many of these coins exist. The resubmissions can be assumed to be partly offset by remaining uncertified coins in older collections and coins in the holders of other active grading services such as ANACS and ICG and now defunct services such as PCI. However, it is probably safe to assume that the majority of the existing examples of this rare coin, which almost always sells for at least four figures in any grade, are now certified by NGC or PCGS. It is probably also safe to assume that, as this coin was issued for a premium to collectors of the time, most of the original mintage has been preserved. The NGC Census shows a total population of 485 numerically graded 1877 three cent nickels, plus 2 details graded pieces. The PCGS Population Report shows a total of 668 numerically graded pieces. (PCGS does not report the number of coins it has details graded.) The combined population is 1,153 pieces based on the gross number of submission events. Of the 485 numerically graded NGC submissions, 296 (61%) were not awarded a "cameo" designation, 187 (38.6%) received the "CAM" designation and only 2 pieces received an "Ultra Cameo" ("UCAM") designation. Of the 668 reported PCGS submissions, 490 (73.4%) did not receive a "cameo" designation, 174 (26%) received the "CAM" designation, and only 4 pieces received the "deep cameo" ("DCAM") designation. It is reasonable to conclude from this data that most 1877 three cent nickels have insufficient field to device contrast to be designated "cameo" and that "deep" or "ultra" cameos are quite rare. The population data also reveals that the "64" and "65" grades are by far the most commonly awarded, with coins graded "66" being far fewer in number but with still enough pieces graded to be available with some frequency. Pieces graded "67" are quite unusual. The highest numerical grade awarded by either service is "68", 4 in PF 68 CAM by NGC (perhaps the same coin submitted 4 different times?) and a solitary PR 68 CAM by PCGS. @1946Hamm has posted on this topic a photo of the obverse of an NGC holder containing an NGC graded PF 65 example of an 1877 three cent nickel. My own coin, acquired in 2015 to complete my set by date and shown below, is PCGS graded PR 58, one of only a few pieces at either service to receive a circulated grade. The coin was likely brushed or otherwise mishandled by a previous owner rather than being actually used in commerce. Photos courtesy of Stacks Bowers Galleries.

Welcome to the NGC chat board. Your inquiry would likely receive more prompt attention from the appropriate NGC personnel if it had been posted on the "Ask NGC/NCS" forum instead of the "NGC Registry" forum. It has also been my experience that grading credits are automatically applied to the invoice for one's next submission after purchasing a membership providing the credit. This is in fact NGC's stated policy. "If you joined as an NGC Premium or Elite member, your $150 credit will be posted to your account instantly. It will then be automatically applied to your submissions until the credit is exhausted. If you have a member credit, you must still provide a valid payment method." NGC Membership FAQs - Joining NGC | NGC (ngccoin.com) (answer to question, "How do I use my member credit?").

I bought this 1914-D Lincoln cent last night at a coin club meeting from a senior member who specializes in U.S. copper coins. It upgrades the corroded, pitted and scratched example of this key date that has been in my album since about 1980. This new coin is chocolate brown, with a strong VG obverse and a reverse that has sufficient wheat stalk detail to grade Fine. It has a noticeable dig at the back of Lincoln's head and some light rim damage but is overall a decent coin for an album collection.

1900 Barber quarter, NGC graded PF 64 (old holder). This may have been graded before NGC began awarding proofs "Cameo" designations: Photos courtesy of Stacks Bowers Galleries.

The three cent nickel series has a number of known die varieties, mostly repunched dates and minor doubled dies, as shown in such references as the Cherrypickers' Guide to Rare Die Varieties and NGC VarietyPlus. Nickel Three Cents (1865-1889) | VarietyPlus® | NGC (ngccoin.com). One of the more interesting varieties, however, is an apparent misplaced date digit, the 1875 FS-301. Those of you who collect Indian cent varieties will likely be familiar with the 1897 FS-401, commonly referred to as the "1 in neck" variety due to the top flag of a "1", presumably from the date logotype, protruding from the left side of the "Indian's" neck. The 1875 three cent nickel variety is similarly described as having the flag of an errant "1" punched into the obverse die so that it protrudes from Liberty's neck. This protrusion, which is straight and angled upward, does not appear to match the flag of the "1" in the date, which is differently shaped and angled downward. NGC VarietyPlus states that "[t]he projection is probably the numeral's base, but it could also be its flag." Here is the VarietyPlus photo of the area including the neck, the anomalous protrusion, and the date: Interestingly, the obverse die with this presumed misplaced "1" was used to coin both some 1875 circulation strikes (228,000 reported issued, a scarcer "common" date) and some proofs ("700+" reported issued). It is doubtful that anyone has ever tried to accumulate enough 1875 three cent nickels in either format to form an informed opinion as to what percentage of either exists with this purported misplaced digit. I purchased the unattributed 1875 three cent nickel that NGC graded PF 64 whose photos follow at an August 2021 internet auction. I could see from the auction photos that it was of the misplaced date variety. The surfaces of this coin are rather dull for a proof, but this is not unusual for proof three cent nickels. The obverse is somewhat more reflective than the photos (courtesy of Stacks Bowers Galleries) suggest but exhibits considerable "cartwheel" when rotated under a light. The reverse is hardly reflective at all and is frosty in some areas but exhibits heavy die polish marks when viewed at a certain angle. While these factors render the proof status of the coin somewhat questionable, the appearance of several "lint marks" on the obverse, the strong strike--note particularly the absolutely full lines in the digits of the Roman numeral-- and the scarcity of marks indicating coin-to-coin contact justify by a preponderance of the evidence NGC's classification of this coin as a proof. This interesting variety represents a "cherrypicking opportunity" among both certified and uncertified coins.

NGC states that its holders are not designed to be either airtight not watertight. See NGC Grading FAQs - NGC Labels and Holders | NGC (ngccoin.com), answer to question, "Is the NGC holder airtight or watertight". The NGC Guarantee does not apply to coins that NGC has determined have been improperly stored or that tend to deteriorate over time. NGC Guarantee | Coin Certification Guarantee | NGC (ngccoin.com). Most importantly concerning the copper coin that is the subject of this topic, "Coins made of copper, bronze and brass or are copper-plated can change over time. Accordingly, with regard to copper, bronze, brass or copper-plated Coins, the grade portion of this Guarantee will no longer apply after the 10-year anniversary of their date of encapsulation. The vast majority of my circulated half and large cents and other copper and copper alloy coins have been stored in Library of Coins and Whitman albums in air-conditioned bank vaults for decades. They're doing just fine and taking up a small fraction they would occupy in grading service holders. Although NGC and other grading service holders will protect coins from your grubby fingers, falls, and certain other hazards, so will far less expensive and bulky storage options.

As others have stated, this common wartime composition five cent piece is worn, damaged and currently worth a dollar or so for its silver content. By the way, the word by which these coins are commonly referred is spelled nickel, not "nickle". You should obtain a current or recent "Redbook" from which you can learn basic information about U.S. coins. See the following topic for information on how to obtain this and other resources:

1909 Liberty nickel, PCGS graded MS 64: Photos courtesy of Stacks Bowers Galleries.

@RWB has been good enough to provide photos of and historical context for some of the patterns I recall seeing over the years that were inspired by the three-cent nickel design. Although the obverse design concept was never adapted for another circulating coin, the use of a Roman numeral as the sole indicator of a coin's value was carried over to Liberty nickels in 1883, with less than satisfactory results, as unscrupulous persons gold plated them, reeded the edges, and passed them off as similarly sized five-dollar gold pieces, necessitating the addition of the word "CENTS" to the five cent coins. I have never heard of anyone altering and attempting to pass a three-cent nickel off as a three-dollar gold piece, a larger coin with a limited distribution that likely would have been less familiar to most Americans than the half eagle. It does not appear that during the nineteenth century three cent nickels were readily confused with dimes either, notwithstanding that both dimes minted since 1837 and three cent nickels have identical diameters of 17.9 millimeters. Presumably, the considerable difference in design from the Liberty Seated dime prevented confusion of these two denominations. (Twenty cent pieces, which bore Liberty Seated and eagle motifs similar to those of the Liberty Seated quarter dollar, were reportedly confused with those quarter dollars.) I have, however, read occasional reports of worn three cent nickels being found in rolls of modern dimes.

There doesn't seem to be a topic on the forum devoted to this relatively short-lived series (1865-1889), all of one design type, alternatively known as copper-nickel three cent pieces, nickel three cent pieces, or three cent nickels. This topic will be for members to post questions, comments and research regarding, as well as photos of, these coins. I have always liked Longacre's design, which is unique to the series, although variants can be found on some contemporary pattern pieces. The head of Liberty is reminiscent of the head representing "Helvetia" on some Swiss coins. The series includes some low-priced issues (1865-76, 81) and others that are low mintage and more expensive but are mostly affordable when compared to more widely collected nineteenth and twentieth century series. The initial issue of these coins dated 1865 represented the first use of the 75% copper 25% nickel alloy in U.S. coinage, preceding its use in five cent coins (Shield nickels) by a year. Although this alloy is still in use today in five cent coins and the outer layers of clad dimes, quarter dollars, and half dollars, the U.S. Mint had much difficulty producing coins composed of this alloy for the first five to ten years it was in use. Weak strikes, die cracks, and clash marks are the rule rather than the exception for the earlier, higher mintage years of circulation issues of this series, especially for coins dated from 1865 to 1869. Later, lower mintage issues tend to be better produced. Proofs also vary in quality, with some being dull and lifeless in appearance but others being a joy to behold with fully mirrored fields contrasting with frosted devices. I own at least one of each date, including the 1873 "closed 3" and "open "3" varieties, and the 1887, 7 over 6 proof. The mint state and proof issues and a PR 58 example of the 1877 proof only key date are NGC or PCGS certified, with circulated pieces, including some scarcer dates, presently uncertified and housed in pages from an old Whitman bookshelf album for two, three and twenty cent pieces and Shield nickels. The only pieces I have dated 1883, 84, and 85 are proofs, as purported circulation strikes of these years are much more expensive than proofs, and I question whether anyone, including grading service personnel, can reliably tell the difference between them. This is one of the many subjects that we can discuss on this topic. Here are a couple of the certified pieces from my collection, with more to come. 1865, PCGS graded MS 64. Relatively well-struck for this first-year issue, but with die breaks and heavy clash marks on both sides. You can see the upside-down outline of Liberty's profile on the reverse due to clash marks. 1887, 7 over 6, PCGS graded PR 65 CAM, a boldly struck cameo proof with a clear overdate. You can see curving "lint marks" in the hair beneath Liberty's coronet on the obverse and next to the top right of the second Roman numeral "I" on the reverse. These are thought to be "strikethroughs" of lint from cloths or strands from brushes used to clean the dies and are often seen on proof coins of this era.

Both of these coins are almost certainly corroded examples of normal brass alloy (95% copper) 1944-D Lincoln cents. You can tell for sure by touching them with a magnet. The steel ones will stick to the magnet, while the brass ones won't. You can try this out on any 1943 steel cents you may happen to have.

Although we can help you with a few pieces, you should really have a collection this large professionally appraised. If you don't want to do that, at least obtain a current "Red Book", a grading guide, and up-to-date price guides as described in the following topic:

The so-called 1970-S "small date" or "high 7" cent can be identified by the top of the "7" in the date being level with the other numerals. However, the easiest diagnostic is the thin, lightly impressed obverse lettering, as seen on this photo from the NGC Coin Explorer:

No. This 1971 U.K. New Penny is extremely common and as a slightly circulated coin with edge damage only worth a few cents. See Great Britain New Penny KM 915 Prices & Values | NGC (ngccoin.com). Dealers sell common foreign coins like these for a few dollars a pound.

Coins being inanimate objects that don't move on their own, a video wouldn't be helpful. The series of photos you just posted, which I assume are taken from the video, once again indicate no meaningful difference in size of the coin itself (diameter) or in the size or style of its design elements. In each of the photos one coin appears to have been placed higher than the other. You should find someone who possesses and knows how to use a micrometer caliper to determine the exact diameter of the coin, which should be approximately 19.05 millimeters, assuming that the edge of the coin hasn't been damaged. If this isn't possible, if the coin is in fact of an abnormally small diameter, it would fit too loosely or move around in a cent sized coin holder, coin tube, or coin album. There should also be an observable difference in size when you place the coin directly on top of another cent. Based on everything I've seen so far, my answer is no, your coin isn't a new variety. It's an ordinary circulated 1961-D Lincoln cent.

In your previous posts on both this and your other topic about the same coin ("New VARIETY"), you stated at various points that the one 1961-D cent was "smaller", had "been struck with small dies" or (in the title of this topic) might have "different elements". These different words have completely different meanings. I couldn't see any meaningful difference from your earlier photos (including those showing the "normal" and "small" pieces side by side) and asked you to clarify what you meant. You did not do so. I assumed that you thought that the devices (such as Lincoln's bust) and the lettering were slightly smaller on the one coin and on your other topic gave a conjectural explanation that this had to do with the gradual deterioration of the obverse master die, which had been in use since 1919. In your newest photos, it initially appeared that the third coin might be slightly smaller in diameter, but I then realized that it appeared so because it had been positioned lower than the other two coins. It appears to be the same size as the other coins, which should be approximately 19.05 mm at actual size, the specification for cents in effect from 1864 (bronze) up to now. Any difference in diameter not caused by post-mint damage, such as metal being shaved from the edge of the coin, would relate to the size of the planchet (blank) on which the coin was struck and would have nothing to do with dies or hubs, so my previous conjecture would be irrelevant. I'll ask one last time: Do you mean by "smaller" that the coin is smaller in diameter than other cents? If not, just what do you mean?